Does this seem accurate to you?

[Vektor]

I've heard this before, and while an interesting theory, I'm not entirely certain it rings sincere.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=524042&mesg_id=530401

[Mass]

1. My answer to this post

Gore won - If only for that, this does not stand.

We lost for many reasons, from electoral fraud to the fact that the Democrats did not do the best job in mobilizing their voters (where was the DNC in 2001-2002-2003-2004). May be Dean can do something there, like making people understand that, even in blue and red states, it is important for the Democrats to go out and vote. I know too many people in CA and MA that stayed home while the GOP was having people out. Building the grassroot organizations which will do the local GOTV effort is the role of the DNC and of the local organizations, and I hope Dean is going to be great on that.

I dont think we lost to Bush, I think we lost because their machine paradoxally has cultivated the grassroots for years while the Clinton Democrats have forgotten they needed the grassroots and have only focused on big money (and have been doing a good job on that, but it is not enough). And of course, electoral fraud did a lot too, not only Diebold, but all that is done to make sure than poor working people cannot go to vote (long lines, hours, ...).

[ginnyinWI]

5. If those blue staters had thought their votes mattered,

they would have come out to vote. There is a new group out now trying to push for a national popular vote (www.nationalpopularvote.com)which points this out. Just think of all the additional votes Kerry would have received from these areas. I think I remember the CA vote being down--people just knew that it didn't matter if they made the effort. Huh--what if they all thought that and all stayed home??? CA would have gone for *--and wouldn't they feel embarrassed!

I really think going to a national popular vote is an idea worth looking into.

Also--we had a lot of money this time, on a par with the RNC, but since we weren't expecting it, didn't have the infrastructure ready to use it to best advantage. They, as you say, had all their grassroots people in place and ready to go. The DNC was sending people in from out-of-state to run campaigns. This happened where I was volunteering. It seemed to be a case of playing catch-up in those last months.

And with all of these disadvantages and problems--Kerry only lost Ohio by a whisker. He came so close and came up that far despite it all! I just hate the way people want to just put him away on the shelf, beside Gore, labeled "past presidential nominees". :( Wherever the blame lies, and I suspect it should go in a lot of directions, it does not go to John Kerry's doorstep. He did everything anybody could possibly have done. Campaigned his heart out, tirelessly. Not his fault.

[beachmom]

2. Well, for me, part of it

I also think that Bush won; I'm not saying there wasn't some fraud, but I do think he won the election. But the poster is delusional if he thinks Howard Dean would do better. Had Howard Dean been the nominee, there would have been no talk of election fraud, because it would have been such a blowout, there would have been no ambiguity. I also think the poster is wrong when he says Kerry was a "bad candidate". Look, Kerry made mistakes (really two that mattered, both about Iraq), but the media was manipulated by the GOP to replay those mistakes over and over again. He was a fantastic candidate and would have been an even better president. He didn't get the votes because people were scared and ignorant, and the media carried water for the GOP, unwittingly or not.

[Vektor]

4. There is no doubt in my mind

that both elections were stolen flat out lock, stock, and barrel - there's way too much evidence.

What did it for me was when Walden O'Dell, chair of the Bush re-election committee for the state of Ohio, and former owner of Diebold (resigned suddenly when fraud investigations began) publicly promised at a fundraiser - on tape, with a snicker - to "deliver Ohio's electoral votes to George W. Bush" then proceeded to do just that.

Also a co-chair in Bush's Ohio re-election committee? Corrupt SOS, Ken Blackwell.

When a recount was ordered, Blackwell hand picked the counties that were "allowed to be recounted."

Totally illegal, since it is supposed to be a random selection.

Hell, no. Bush did not win. Wally O'Dell and Kenny Blackwell selected him.

[sandnsea]

7. Honestly, that means nothing to me

I would imagine if we analyzed every statement made by mucketymucks in the country, several would have said they were going to deliver their state's electoral votes for their candidate of choice. I don't think it means anything except what he said it meant, he was going to work to get Bush elected. If he planned on stealing an election, he isn't stupid enough to say it out loud. Not to mention, that all this attention on Diebold has been 10 times the strategic blunder of all of Kerry's so-called blunders combined. ALL the machines have security flaws, ALL the machines had operating glitches. We should never have made this a Diebold only issue.

Blackwell, and a whole host of other issues in Ohio, those deserve scrutiny. They don't steal elections outright, they pilfer the votes away, just like they pilfer away our tax dollars and services; little slices here and there until there's nothing left.

[Vektor]

16. It means a lot to me. And so does all the other evidence I've seen.

I'm convinced both elections were flat out stolen. I've seen WAY more than enough to support that.

[sandnsea]

17. I was referring to the one comment

The actual things that happened in Ohio, those things are important. As are a whole lot of election fraud incidents that have actually been proven across the country.

I just don't think off the cuff comments mean anything. If Diebold was the only company with questionable computer errors, that comment might mean something. But since every company has had problems, it's obviously more than one guy at Diebold behind all of this. Kind of diverts attention away from the votes that can be proven to be suspicious.

[Vektor]

18. I guess it's easy to couple

such off the cuff statements with actual fraud when the person speaking is a corrupt scoundrel who worships GWB and owns the voting machines.

The fact that a partisan owned company, so heavily tied in with GWB, was allowed to provide the machines that "count" the votes is inexcusable. It's a huge conflict of interest.

You may disagree, and that's totally cool, but I believed immediately when O'Dell's statement was issued that he was up to no good - that he'd do EXACTLY what he said he was going to do, because he had the means (the machines) to do it.

Did you happen to get the chance to see that speech he made? It made my skin crawl, because just hearing his voice, and seeing his face when he said it - you KNEW he was gonna pull some shit. Or more specifically, I knew.

Truth be known, of all the evidence I have seen compiled, all the mountains of data and statistics I have poured over, and all the GAO reports which identified widespread dirty tricks and hackable machines - it was O'Dell's statement that convinced me beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was going to rig the election.

I don't know if you have ever had the chance to take the Jung Typology personality test, (try it, it's fun) but I'm a rather unusual "INFJ."

http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes2.asp

It seems only a tiny percentage of the world population matches this type. I read the description provided, and it was the most eerily, uncannily, accurate assessment of myself I have ever seen. It's widely used and respected in the medical community.

Here's my profile:
http://typelogic.com/infj.html

One of the most accurate, interesting, and uncanny mentions is this:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There's something rotten in Denmark." Accurately suspicious about others' motives, INFJs are not easily led. These are the people that you can rarely fool any of the time."

"INFJs are well aware of the treachery that can reside in the hearts of mortals. "

"INFJs readily grasp the hidden psychological stimuli behind the more observable dynamics of behavior and affect. Their amazing ability to deduce the inner workings of the mind, will and emotions of others gives INFJs their reputation as prophets and seers.

"INFJs may well have the clearest insights of all the types into the motivations of others, for good and for evil."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

My point? There are many tools of research and observation people use to assess situations. To some, the mathematical statistics will be what most clearly illustrate the election fraud. To others, stories of systematic disenfranchisement will hit home...whatever the case, someone like myself could conceivably misinterpret a mathematical formula, or not be entirely convinced by a mere story, but not once, in all my days, have I been wrong about the motives of others. I can read a person often before I even make eye contact with them. They can step into the same room as me, and I will sense all there is to know about them. It will hit me like a ton of bricks with absolute clarity - to the point where I can predict their actions in the near future with pinpoint accuracy. I can just as easily see them on TV in a candid moment, and that will be more than sufficient, as well. I have such a dead-on ability to read others, that being in the same close proximity as someone with ulterior motives or ill or malicious intent is actually physically painful for me. I can feel their evil with every fiber of my being, and it is excruciating for me.

So while I have seen mountains of evidence supporting fraud in the 2004 election, the one piece of evidence, above and beyond all, which told me all I needed to know, was when I looked in Walden O'Dell's eyes as he made that dubious promise. That spoke to me the loudest, and I trust my instincts %200 on that.

[WildEyedLiberal]

22. OMG, I'm an INFJ too!

We are so the same.

[TayTay]

24. I'm close. INFP

Although I don't like this survey and I'm not sure I like the profile.

[Vektor]

27. The way your profile was written was a little odd.

Ol' "Joe Butt" might have been on the Ganja that day. A lot of it rung true with me if you looked through the flowery language though.

"INFPs have the ability to see good in almost anyone or anything."

That's true. While you abhor the Repukes, you are a kind person who manages to treat others nicely, and do really seem to see the good in others.

My profile was as if I wrote it myself.

[TayTay]

28. Mine didn't sound like me at all.

Yours did sound like you. I liked yours a lot.

[Vektor]

29. This sounds like you...

"Intuition spawns this type's philosophical bent and strengthens pattern perception. It combines as auxiliary with introverted Feeling and gives rise to unusual skill in both character development and fluency with language--a sound basis for the development of literary facility. If INTPs aspire to word mechanics, INFPs would be verbal artists."

I saw a lot of you in it but the way he wrote the profile was strange.

But hey, Jackie O. and JFK were INFP's.

I wonder what John Kerry is?

[TayTay]

34. Oh, I went to the other page

I didn't like this, it's too, ahm, sweet:

"Healers have a profound sense of idealism derived from a strong personal morality, and they conceive of the world as an ethical, honorable place. Indeed, to understand Healers, we must understand their idealism as almost boundless and selfless, inspiring them to make extraordinary sacrifices for someone or something they believe in. The Healer is the Prince or Princess of fairytale, the King's Champion or Defender of the Faith, like Sir Galahad or Joan of Arc. Healers are found in only 1 percent of the general population, although, at times, their idealism leaves them feeling even more isolated from the rest of humanity."

Ewwwey. Portrait of people who die young, burnt at the stake or something. Who would want that? (Okay, if it's absolutely necessary, but there better be stock options and benefits. That is a bad severance deal otherwise.)

Plus, the example of this type was Princess Diana and I resent being compared to her. (I thought she was nice, but narcissistic, self-involved and shallow.)

http://keirsey.com/personality/nfip.html

[rox63]

32. I'm also an INFP

But about 10 years ago, I was an ISTJ. I flipped personailty type for everything except introvert. And honestly, I've always thought the introvert/extrovert thing is hard-wired into our brains.

[Vektor]

26. Are you serious?!?! That is bizarre. I have NEVER found another one...

It's the rarest type.

Weird.

[karynnj]

30. INTJ too

[Vektor]

31. Yours is a cool one.

I liked the description of you!

[karynnj]

44. It's reasonably accurate

It's similar to the results I got when a group (about 100 people) that I worked in all took the Myers Briggs test. We were an internal analytical/statistical consulting group and we all came out introverted/analytical. (The purpose was to teach us that understanding where others were would make us more effective dealing with people we did work for who were mostly extroverted/feeling.) It did explain why all of us had the same feeling of being incrediblely comfortable in our own internal group. The point was to teach us to be more political in how we questioned the logic of things said at meetings with our client organizations.

[TayTay]

45. I remember doing the same thing back around 14 years ago

or so for the same reason. I had organized a 'community learning' program at work for support and administrative staff (to teach things like usenet and to answer techie questions on the common apps we all had to use and stuff.) It made sense to me to 'pool our knowledge.' When we all took the Myers-Briggs test I had the same INFP and I only sort of see it. I think this sort of thing is 'generally' true and there is real wisdom there, but there is a lot of 'bleed' between types and it is not completely 'personally true.' (Just a litte caveat. No personality test ever captures a person in full. It is a pointer and a generally true thing.)

[ProSense]

41. This was me too

I see some truth, but I have to read it again.

[sandnsea]

33. Well see, I"m an INTJ

"Masterminds will adopt ideas only if they are useful, which is to say if they work efficiently toward accomplishing the Mastermind's well-defined goals."

I don't disagree with you that O'Dell is evil. I just don't find it useful in proving fraud occurred in Ohio or the Republican Party across the country. If Diebold were the only election company involved, then it would be useful. Since ALL the machines have been known to throw votes around, this indicates a possible intentional recruitment of people who know how to hack and would take it upon themselves to do it.

I'm going to go read the rest of the stuff, looks like more fun! :)

[Vektor]

35. Oh, agreed, it was definitely more widespread than just O'Dell.

He's like the sebaceous kernel in the middle of the purulent, pus-addled zit on the ass of Democracy, ya know? Instrumental in all the evil doing, but certainly not the only player.

[TayTay]

36. That is some image, my dear

Quite accurate, but still, I'm glad I wasn't still eating lunch when I read that one.

[Vektor]

37. Tee-hee... sorry - speaking of things I'd like to eat for lunch...

Here's a more appetizing picture to really stimulate your, er, appetite.

[TayTay]

38. You are a bad girl! A bad, bad, girl. (I'm working, ferchrisakes!)

We need a whole new personality grouping here

Red-tie-overt or blue-tie-overt (R or B)

Rather watch Fisheries Hearings or rather watch Jerry Springer-style hearings (B or J)

Prefer Position Papers linked to encyclopedic entries on pluses and minuses of minute policy or
Feels that we should do something because not doing something doesn't feel right (E or F)

Knows some people are 'friggin bastids' or suspects some people are 'friggin bastids,' but doesn't want to get into it with them cuz it gives them a headache. (J or S)

Oh and I found a great descriptive page for INTJ:

INFJs have uncanny insight into people and situations. They get "feelings" about things and intuitively understand them. As an extreme example, some INFJs report experiences of a psychic nature, such as getting strong feelings about there being a problem with a loved one, and discovering later that they were in a car accident. This is the sort of thing that other types may scorn and scoff at, and the INFJ themself does not really understand their intuition at a level which can be verbalized. Consequently, most INFJs are protective of their inner selves, sharing only what they choose to share when they choose to share it. They are deep, complex individuals, who are quite private and typically difficult to understand. INFJs hold back part of themselves, and can be secretive.

But the INFJ is as genuinely warm as they are complex. INFJs hold a special place in the heart of people who they are close to, who are able to see their special gifts and depth of caring. INFJs are concerned for people's feelings, and try to be gentle to avoid hurting anyone. They are very sensitive to conflict, and cannot tolerate it very well. Situations which are charged with conflict may drive the normally peaceful INFJ into a state of agitation or charged anger. They may tend to internalize conflict into their bodies, and experience health problems when under a lot of stress.

more at: http://www.personalitypage.com/INFJ.html

Yeah, that's you.

Mine is still wishy-washy and makes me feel that if I am truly this I should perhaps not put off getting that brochure on euthanasia:

INFPs do not like conflict, and go to great lengths to avoid it. If they must face it, they will always approach it from the perspective of their feelings. In conflict situations, INFPs place little importance on who is right and who is wrong. They focus on the way that the conflict makes them feel, and indeed don't really care whether or not they're right. They don't want to feel badly.(Editors note: Oh gross, bite me. This would just suck and cannot possibly be me!) This trait sometimes makes them appear irrational and illogical in conflict situations. On the other hand, INFPs make very good mediators, and are typically good at solving other people's conflicts, because they intuitively understand people's perspectives and feelings, and genuinely want to help them.

INFPs are flexible and laid-back, until one of their values is violated. In the face of their value system being threatened, INFPs can become aggressive defenders, fighting passionately for their cause. When an INFP has adopted a project or job which they're interested in, it usually becomes a "cause" for them. Although they are not detail-oriented individuals, they will cover every possible detail with determination and vigor when working for their "cause".

[Vektor]

39. "Oh and I found a great descriptive page for INTJ"

You meant to say INFJ, right? Because that's what you posted - my profile, and my GOD that is accurate. Right down to the eerie intuition.

[TayTay]

40. INFJ at

http://www.personalitypage.com/INFJ.html

You: INFJ
Quietly forceful, original, and sensitive. Tend to stick to things until they are done. Extremely intuitive about people, and concerned for their feelings. Well-developed value systems which they strictly adhere to. Well-respected for their perserverence in doing the right thing. Likely to be individualistic, rather than leading or following.


Me: INFP (Allegedly. I am not convinced. This sounds saint-like. That can't be me. It sounds like my dog more than me, except for the writing part. My dog can't write, except for some kinds of poetry, sigh!)
Quiet, reflective, and idealistic. Interested in serving humanity. Well-developed value system, which they strive to live in accordance with. Extremely loyal. Adaptable and laid-back unless a strongly-held value is threatened. Usually talented writers. Mentally quick, and able to see possibilities. Interested in understanding and helping people.


http://www.personalitypage.com/high-level.html

[Vektor]

42. That's actually exactly you, except for the "quiet" part!

The rest is pretty spot on, IMHO.

[WildEyedLiberal]

43. Yep, that's me, too, INFJ

Vektor and I are just especially unique I guess :D

[beachmom]

8. I agree that these facts are just horrible

But for me, I need someone mainstream and establishment (like even a local MSM Ohio newspaper) to come out and say the election was fraudulent. I know, I know -- you'll say that that won't happen. But I need real evidence in my hand from a fully credible authority, and I haven't found it (and I've read a lot of the stuff here). My previous career was as an accountant, and in that sense I am very exacting. I believe everything you have to say, but I need the dots all to be connected, and for me, they haven't.

By the way, I did just read the Seymour Hersh article from the New Yorker (7/05) on how the U.S. tried to rig the election in Iraq in January '05 so that the pro-Iranian Shiite alliance wouldn't get as much of the vote. Of course, EVERYBODY cheated, so it didn't go quite as well as they planned (* was quoted as saying "don't put the thumb on the scales" and then a week later ordering the covert operations to rig the election -- that guy really is a total liar!) So obviously after reading that article it pushes me toward being in your camp, Vektor, but I'm just not there. I am not fully convinced. Sometimes the simplest answer -- that * won in '04 -- is the correct answer. And SOOO many people I know voted for him, so that may color my judgment, too.

Obviously, Gore won in '00, if you figure all the elderly who voted for Buchanon by mistake.

[ProSense]

3. BS!

A moron (bad president) stole two elections. What people fail to realize is that Gore had almost 550,000 more votes than Bush. The electoral college vote went to Bush by decree.

Kerry needed only Ohio to win, despite the popular vote. Those actual---real, not manipulated---results will never be known.

As this post shows:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=273&topic_id=73174&mesg_id=73203

[ProSense]

11. I also believe he won Florida

This story is certainly getting spread around:

Group questions outcome of Florida's 2004 presidential election
WPMI 15 - Feb 24 4:52 AM
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. (AP) - A Florida group is questioning the outcome of the 2004 presidential election. BlackBoxVoting-dot-org says it examined the records of electronic voting machines in Palm Beach County.


Outcome of Florida's 2004 presidential election questioned by watchdog group
Sun-Sentinel - Feb 23 3:26 PM
WEST PALM BEACH -- An examination of Palm Beach County's electronic voting machine records from the 2004 election found possible tampering and tens of thousands of malfunctions and errors, a watchdog group said Thursday.


Group Questions Outcome Of Florida's 2004 Presidential Election
Local6.com Central Florida - Feb 23 11:29 AM
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. -- A group that audits elections said that Palm Beach County's voting machines were so defective that the outcome of the 2004 presidential election may have been affected.


Group Questions Outcome Of Florida's 2004 Presidential Election
News4Jax.com - Feb 23 12:40 PM
A nonprofit group's audits says that Palm Beach County's voting machines were so defective that the outcome of the 2004 presidential election may have been affected.


Voted #1 Florida Press 2004 FIRST PLACE Best Web Site Florida Keys Keynoter
Keynoter.com - Feb 27 6:06 AM
That sound you hear is not just the stumping by candidates for the Marathon City Council, Islamorada Village Council and Key Colony Beach City Commission hoping to get elected in their respective elections March 14.


Citizens' group alleges problems in 2004 Florida voting
WHO-TV Des Moines - Feb 23 7:48 PM
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. A watchdog group is raising doubts about the outcome of the 2004 presidential election.


Watchdog Group Questions 2004 Fla. Vote
ABC News - Feb 23 1:11 PM
Watchdog Group Questions Outcome of Florida's 2004 Presidential Election


Nelson Dominates in Florida’s Senate Race
Angus Reid - Feb 26 9:08 PM
(Angus Reid Global Scan) – Democrat Bill Nelson could earn a new six-year term as one of Florida's representatives to the United States Senate, according to two recent voting intention polls.


Many of Florida's voting machines were faulty in'04, group says
The Star-Ledger - Feb 23 11:10 PM
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. -- A watchdog group's examination of Palm Beach County's electronic voting machine records from the 2004 election found possible tampering and tens of thousands of malfunctions and errors, the group yesterday.


Florida votes in '04 possibly tampered with
Arizona Daily Star - Feb 23 11:09 PM
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — An examination of Palm Beach County's electronic voting machine records from the 2004 election found possible tampering and tens of thousands of malfunctions and errors, a watchdog group said Thursday.

[sandnsea]

6. Gore absolutely won, elections are a mess

There is no doubt in my mind that Floridians went to the polls intending to vote for Gore and weren't able to for a variety of reasons. Some could have been corrected in a recount, some not. I think everything I've read about the media recounts also indicate Gore won. Kerry, I don't know.

Whether there is a Diebold election theft ring, I don't quite think so. But, I do think we could put together a RICO suit, or some sort of class action. The registration fraud in OR, NV & AZ. The Noe stuff in Ohio. The New Hampshire phone jamming, with Toben going on to run the Senate Committee, before he had to resign. The SC "Republican Victory Program", with the people who resigned over fraud, running the Ohio campaign. The voter purging. Even if we did come up with incidents of machine tampering, I'd bet it still wouldn't tie into the national party, just like the rest of these cases. Until we list the ways that they have been proven to cheat, and then match it up across the country, we won't have any election fraud case anyway.

As to Howard Dean, :rofl:

[fedupinBushcountry]

9. I do believe their was election fraud

but, I also believe that many in blue states did not vote just because they knew Kerry would win their state. I also know for a fact that even in red states, some stayed home because they knew Bush would win their state. The problem is that they didn't realize that their votes needed to be counted as a whole. I think that it would of made a big difference in Kerry's decision. Kerry also speaks of this in his interview on Doublespeak. He knows what has to be done.

[Dr Ron]

10. Depends upon how you count the vote

If Gore got his recount only in the specific counties where he was conducting the recount, post election reviews showed he would have lost.

However, if there was a state wide recount, he would have won. Gore would have also won if they challenged the over-count as opposed to only challenging the under count. The over-count were ballots which were not counted because someone voted twice for President. However, on closer analysis post election it turned out that many of the over count were actually cases where people both voted for Gore normally and then wrote in his name. This was typically in black areas where they feared their votes wouldn't be counted, and some mistakingly believed that by also writing in his name they were making their votes clearer. There were enough such "double Gore" ballots thrown out to give him the election if they were counted for Gore (once obviously).

In the case of Kerry it isn't as clear as it is isn't simply a case of going back to count the ballots to show Kerry won. Without outright evidence of fraud we cannot make the same claims that Kerry won as with Gore.

[TayTay]

12. I think mistakes were made

I don't give a shit about the $87 billion line. Remember, the Rove team had a person tracking every appearance Kerry made from January on and recording it for future use. The Rethugs have an incredibly dedicated and efficient group of higly skilled and knowledgeable people who write 'the book' on the opposition. I don't count that as a real mistake, I count that as the opposition being in a position to capitalize on the inevitable verbal blunder. (Hey, candidates are human. Errors happen. The Rethugs simply have the people to make something off them before our side realizes we've been hit.)

I think the real mistake in Ohio was in outsourcing the GOTV to 527's. Read this from the NYTimes article:

Bouchard (ACT director for Ohio) had molded an impressive, almost military operation. He took over Ohio from a previous director last April, after running field operations for Bob Graham and then Wesley Clark in each man’s failed bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. Bouchard inherited a sprawling network of some 25 field offices and a payroll of 800 canvassers. Before he arrived, ACT was quickly exhausting its budget for Ohio, and, worse, Bouchard observed, it wasn’t converting enough voters to justify the expense. The reason, he figured, was practical: since ACT, as a 527, was legally barred from advocating for a specific candidate, it was impossible for ACT canvassers to make a compelling case for Kerry. They were allowed to tell a voter that, say, a lot of jobs had disappeared from Ohio in the last four years, but they weren’t able to explain what Kerry intended to do about it.

snip

By Election Day, ACT claimed to have registered 85,000 new voters in Ohio, while the rest of the America Votes coalition—groups as large as the A.F.L.-C.I.O. and MoveOn.org and as small as Music for America—had registered another 215,000. If you were an Ohioan registered by ACT or one of its partners, Bouchard told me, you were contacted as many as a dozen times after you registered, by phone or by mail or by a live canvasser at your front door. ACT claimed to have knocked on 3.7 million doors and held more than 1.1 million doorstep conversations in the state; in contrast, the Kerry-Edwards campaign, which had its own significant turnout effort under way, had arrived in Ohio months after ACT and reported having knocked on about 595,000 doors. “There’s no way a party or a campaign could put on the ground the resources that we have,” Bouchard told me. “The sheer numbers of doors we knock on and phone calls we make are just astounding.”

snip

(Act founders) who reported in controlled studies that door-to-door visits were far and away the most effective way to get people to vote. The Democratic Party had a different approach, as I learned just the day before. I had driven over to the Kerry campaign’s Ohio headquarters; it was only a five-minute drive from ACT’s office, and yet so complete was the separation between the campaign and the 527’s that no one in the ACT office seemed to know where it was. (The campaign’s Ohio spokeswoman, Jennifer Palmieri, told me that the only time Kerry operatives had stumbled across ACT’s work in the state was when they went to rent vans for Election Day and found that ACT had beaten them to it.)

More incredibly depressing but you-should-read-this stuff:

The Day After
About 20 staff members and volunteers (from ACT) sat around the TV in the ACT headquarters and watched John Kerry concede the presidency. Several of them hadn’t stopped weeping from the night before. Sarah Benzing, a 27-year-old organizer who had helped design and maintain ACT’s database of Ohio voters, cried on Bouchard’s shoulder. At least the people who worked on the Kerry campaign, she said, had a candidate to thank them for all their work. It was part of the strange existence of working for a political 527; the man for whom you had subjugated everything else in your life for all these months had no way of acknowledging, or even really knowing, what you had done. “We’re just sort of hanging out there,” was the way that Benzing put it.

SNIP

Why wasn’t it enough?
In the days that followed, theories circulated claiming that Republicans had stolen votes from Kerry by messing with the results from electronic voting machines. But the truth was that the Bush campaign had created an entirely new math in Ohio. It wouldn’t have been possible eight years ago, or even four. But with so many white, conservative and religious voters now living in the brand-new town houses and McMansions in Ohio’s growing ring counties, Republicans were able to mobilize a stunning turnout in areas where their support was more concentrated than it was in the past. Bush’s operatives did precisely what they told me seven months ago they would do in these communities: they tapped into a volunteer network using local party organizations, union rolls, gun clubs and churches. They backed it up with a blizzard of targeted appeals; according to the preliminary results of a survey done by the Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy at Brigham Young University, one representative home in Portage County, just outside Cleveland, received 11 pieces of mail from the Republican National Committee.

This effort wasn’t visible to Democrats because it was taking place on an entirely new terrain, in counties that Democrats had some vague notion of, but which they never expected could generate so many votes. The 10 Ohio counties with the highest turnout percentages, many of them small and growing, all went for Bush, and none of them had a turnout rate of less than 75 percent. For Democrats, this new phenomenon on Election Day felt like some kind of horror movie, with conservative voters rising up out of the hills and condo communities in numbers the Kerry forces never knew existed. “They just came in droves,” Jennifer Palmieri told me two days after the election. “We didn’t know they had that room to grow. It’s like, ‘Crunch all you want—we’ll make more.’ They just make more Republicans.”

-- From: Who Lost Ohio?
New York Times, Late Edition - Final, Sec. 6, p 6711-21-2004
By Matt Bai

This is fucking nuts. We can't send everything out third parties and expect to get a coherent message across. We can't send policy out to the NARAL's and other interest groups and then expect to just take this back on a whim. It's not going to happen. We can't third-party the GOTV effort. It's just not a good way to campaign. We have to do better and re-invent our own grassroots and our own ties to those grassroots. (Why the DLC/Carville/Hillary people are wrong: Reason #4565778. Sigh!)

I think the rules have changed profoundly. I think the expectations of who votes and why they vote have changed. I think we need to get with the program and adapt to new conditions in the country and find a new way, pronto, of reaching Democratic voters. Cuz the Rethugs sure as shit found a new way of reaching their voters. And they did it over 40 years and by hard work and going door to door and by working the phones and assembling an excellent GOTV effort. That's what we need to do. There are no short cuts. At all, ever. It's just hard work and committment.

[TayTay]

13. Riddle me this:

What has the Democratic Party learned since Nov of '04? What changes do you think another Kerry campaign would make? Is there a genuine outreach to different kinds of voters? Have some candidates figured out that we (the Dems) need a bigger friggin tent and have gone out to make one? Have certain Dems become far, far less afraid of talking about 'values' and trying to make those 'values' sound both genuine and relevant to the average American? (Genuine matters. People have to believe in you and feel that you are sincere.)

And some Dems get it that you have to go out and work the lines, show up in the districts, be visible and contribute to grassroots candidates and to local races. This is friggin great stuff and will pay dividends, even if some people (like the Carvilles and Clintons of the world) laugh at national candidates showing up for local state races. (bzzzt. this is not a mistake. This is an excellent plan and will pay dividends. It's also hard, hard work. It also doesn't suck up all the money for local Democratic races and take it to far away states. I think there are certain pols who 'get' the lesson of the last race very, very well indeed. And I think there are some who don't.)

Vek; In once sense fraud matters and in one sense it doesn't. It matters because the right to vote is a sacred American principle. Americans have fought, bled and died for that right and everything possible must be done to ensure that every elegible American has the vote and that that vote is counted. Period. End of story. It's a matter of core belief and principle.

The Democrats need to run as though fraud isn't even an issue. They have to take the last results as the God's Own Truth and run the best and most capable races possible. That way we get beyond the narrow, narrow margins that let fraud be possible. In that sense, it doesn't matter. We lost, and next time we will not lose, we will get better. We will not allow the conditions under which fraud took place to occur. We will communicate better and go out and get our voters to the polls. We have to run this way, we have no choice.

[beachmom]

19. Excellent, excellent posts, Tay Tay!!

The thing is I am VERY familar with the so-called "exurbs", and they are fast growing and VERY Republican. There was one in the outer tier of the Atlanta metro area. Kennesaw, Georgia -- houses literally sprouting out of the red clay pine treed forest. Beautiful houses, yet there was an isolation to them in spite of the beautiful landscaping, sidewalks, and circular neighborhoods. They went to the church to make friends and connect with others. And all they know is to vote Republican -- it's reinforced by their isolation from "the world" and from the sermons in the church. And here's the interesting thing: Kaine WON some of these exurbs in Northern Virginia in '05. What that means is that we should not write off these areas. We should engage with them. In a way, my neighborhood is a little like the exurbs. There was also a 75% turnout rate and * won 60 - 40. I don't think a Dem could win my precinct but if we could move the numbers more by 5 or more percentage points and then couple that with deepening the blue areas, it is not impossible imagining Virginia in play for '08. However, the Clintons represent LACK of values -- not just the Monica thing, but the way Clinton would be liberal one day, and then go to the right the next. We need to acknowledge that and realize that the Clintonian days are over, and it's time to put out our agenda, which WILL attract people of faith to vote for us. This starts with '06. Bull Moose who annoys me most of the time has a post today that sees an impending GOP implosion. He can imagine now for the first time a Dem takeover of Congress. But we need to be united, and not write off the fastest growing areas of the country.

[ProSense]

20. I agree. The Democrats should run as if fraud isn't an issue.

And I believe they are doing just that. Most people refuse to even broach the subject of fraud.

It was an issue in 2004. This is what election fraud 2004 looks like:

Election 2004 and Election Reform


It happened and just because the Republicans effectively killed any attempt to launch a serious investigation, doesn't mean to me that the nation should just let it slide. In other words, it happened and they got away with it.

Forget Diebold for a second. If a link between Bush, Ohio, Abramoff, DeLay,
Noe, Ney, Blackwell and others could had been established around the time of the election all hell would have broken loose. Ironically, hell was not what the country wanted, but hell is what the country got.

[TayTay]

21. I don't think the issue galvanizes voters

I think it is an issue for people who read blogs and lib publications. I also think that it is a sort of depressing litmus test that everyone has to pass.

We are not going to be able to effect change on this issue with this Congress. (We don't even have the Democrats on it.) We can nationalize the issue, but only on the basis of it being an issue of basic fairness. The rest has to be fought in the individual states and in the courts. (Those are both long-term processes that could take years to produce results.) I don't think there is anything that the national Dems can really do except find a better way to point at the problem and then support the outside groups that are paying for the lawsuits and such. (Then internalize the issue as a Democratic issue based on the inherent issue of fairness.)

I think fraud happened. I don't think it should be in every argument about what happened in 2004. Dems have work to do that doesn't involve fraud. We need to do better.

[ProSense]

23. I agree

When this study Few American Voters Ever Changed Their Minds, showed that nearly 30% of the public (the same number cited by the Carter-Baker Commission) were not confident in the election, including 10% who believed something went wrong, it was a place to start to build public awareness. It would have taken years, but there was tremendous stonewalling on the issue.

From the survey:

Respondents were asked to rate the honesty of the campaigns on a scale of zero to ten. The average for the Bush campaign was 6.8 and for the Kerry campaign it was 7.2. Bush voters gave his campaign less credit for honesty than Kerry voters gave his. Bush voters rated their campaign at an average of 8.4, while Kerry supporters rated his at 9.1. There was less difference in how they rated the opposition. Bush voters gave Kerry’s campaign a 5.4 average; Kerry’s gave the Bush campaign a 5.2.

There was little evidence of post-election reconciliation in the survey, which was conducted from November 4 through December 28. Kerry voters were asked whether they agreed with the statement: “Even though I voted for John Kerry, George Bush will probably be a good president in his second term.”

Only 2 percent strongly agreed and 13 percent somewhat agreed. Fifteen percent somewhat disagreed and 67 percent strongly disagreed. This was a substantially more negative result than Annenberg found from November 3 through 11. At that time, 5 percent of Kerry voters strongly agreed and 25 percent somewhat agreed. Thirteen percent somewhat disagreed and 53 percent strongly disagreed.

Nor were Kerry voters much more reconciled to the idea that their votes had been counted properly. In this survey, 53 percent of Kerry voters said they were “very confident” their votes had been accurately counted, about the same as the 53 percent who said that in the November 3-11 polling. Among Bush voters, 86 percent said they were “very confident” their votes had been counted accurately, up from 62 percent just after the election. For all voters, the figure was 70 percent

The margin of sampling error for all respondents was plus or minus one percentage point. For either Bush or Kerry voters, it was plus or minus two percentage points.

The survey also blows ABB out of the water:

Ever thought would vote for other candidate:

Bush voters 16%
Never: 84%

Kerry Voters 15%
Never: 85%

All voters 15%
Never: 84%

I don't think it should be an argument in every issue either, and certainly not for the 2006 election.



Here's another interesting poll:

(The NBC/WSJ states that 85% of the poll responders were reigistered voters who: voted 47% for Bush and 42% for Kerry; 15% were not registered, see pg 5. At some points they ask questions of registered voters only, I'm not sure how all of this impacts the results. I'm pretty sure the 31% below is Bush's base.)

On page 6:

Bush
Very Positive 31
Somewhat Positive 19
Neutral 9
Somewhat Negative 13
Very Negative 28

Kerry
Very Positive 19
Somewhat Positive 24
Neutral 18
Somewhat Negative 17
Very Negative 21

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/poll20041217.pdf

[karynnj]

25. These are really interesting surveys

I wish the first one would have asked the parallel question to Bush voters (in the 2 surveys) on whether Kerry would be a good President. Bush's numbers in the 2nd are more polarized than Kerry's - so I suspect he might have done better.

[wisteria]

15. I totally agree. That is why I felt compelled to get involved directly

as a committee person this time around. Strangers can not effectively get the Democratic message across. People don't relate to people they don't know or those who are bussed in to help out.
Also, a lot of time and effort was wasted because no one was sure of territories or what areas had been covered and by whom. Issues were confused and literature was sparse and slow coming.

[jillan]

14. It has also come out that CHOICEPOINT

One of our friendly spy on Americans Corporations
has ties to Diebold.

Dems have to get twice as much votes to overcome the
fraud.